A slew of new polls have recently been released showing that the Presidential campaign in the southern states is essentially a dead heat. Newt Gingrich appears to have a tenuous lead over the other candidates but, in almost every poll, he is within the statistical margin of error.

In Alabama, Rasmussen reported Gingrich on top with 30%, while Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum were close behind at 29% and 28% respectively.

Mississippi presents a bit of a conundrum with its conflicting poll numbers. An American Research Group poll has Newt leading Romney by four points 35%-31%, and Santorum lagging way behind with 20%. However, a recently released Rasmussen poll has Romney leading the state with 35%, while Newt and Santorum are deadlocked at 27% apiece. Its not immediately clear why the two polls, taken only one day apart, came up with such differing results among the candidates but, as with Alabama, it appears to indicate that there is still room for any of the top 3 candidates to push their way to victory in the state.

Its no secret that Newt needs to do well in the south, he has based his entire strategy around it. However, this is not to say that Tuesday’s primaries don’t hold heavy significance to both Santorum and Romney. If either of the latter two campaigns swoops in and takes a win in Mississippi or Alabama, it would be a real blow to the Gingrich campaign strategy.

A win for Romney would show that he can, in fact, appeal to the southern electorate. A win for Santorum, on the other hand, would lend credence to his argument that he is the best conservative alternative to Romney.

Conversely, Gingrich victories in both Mississippi and Alabama would poke holes in Santorum supporters’ argument that Newt should bow out. After all, its difficult to make the argument that a competitor should fold up shop when he’s winning.

Whatever the outcome is to be, top Gingrich advisers have declared Mississippi and Alabama “must win” battle ground states. Although the polls currently offer no clear frontrunner in the two southern states at stake this Tuesday, Santorum and Gingrich have accepted an invitation to participate in a televised Presidential Forum in Alabama the night before voting is to take place.

Gingrich will undoubtedly be looking to use that opportunity to play to his strengths, and put a little more cushion between himself and the other candidates.

Comments

Waste of money…if Newt is the nominee, there is no way an overweight, 68-year-old, womanizing man is going to appeal to the 20% of Independents who will decide the 2012 election outcome. Obama then has four more years to tip the balance of the Supreme Court to the radical left and fully implement ObamaCare. That is how you just spent your money.

Come on Tamm, that’s not fair and you know it. When she said she found LI during a Rush/Carbonite search, I believed her. When she said she was conservative, I also believed her. She certainly seemed to hit many of the other key, conservative wickets and I see no reason to doubt her because you don’t agree with her. Assuming that she knows where PJ stands on the race and/or Rush is a bit of a stretch for me, particularly because so many recent threads, this one included, were written by some of the other bloggers.

Even if she did know where Professor Jacobson stands, it would not make a damned bit of difference. She is still entitled to her opinion, is free to comment here even if she disagrees with you and frankly, many of you should quit hiding behind his rhetorical lab coat, it’s immature. Not one of you “outranks” any other commenter on here and to assume that your position is more valid, and hers less, because the Professor (probably) agrees with you on this one is illogical.

For too many of you here, any hint of disagreement about Newt or a number of other issues is perceived as an “attack” on all of you. I would like to remind you that group think, the “consensus,” is not a replacement for logic. For too many of you here, if you feel attacked, for any reason whatsoever, it’s okay to take the gloves off and resort to any measure, profanity included, to aid your “defense.” You calling her a “beotch” and dropping the F-bomb (pretty early in the “debate” too) was a line too far. I think you know it too.

It also seems as though the only people who have “heart” here are those who agree with you and vice versa. Never once is it assumed that any person, who does disagree with you on some of the details, but might also see eye to eye with you on 80% of the other issues, has that same fire, that same “heart.” Remember, “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.”

Anni-
First, welcome to the site. Believe it or not, almost everyone here is an ardent patriot and a true believer in the red, white and blue. You will not agree with many of them on many of the issues but I believe, over time, you will come to respect them in spite of the differences.

Second, Burkean was right on the money when he said there are a handful of voices out there, “loyal opposition” if you will who argue, sometimes more successfully than others, another perspective. From one “troll” to another (a small badge of honor, don’t take it personally and wear it well because in spite of everything, the commenters using it really do mean well).

Third, and most importantly (and very tongue-in-cheek), what the hell are you DOING? I go away for a day or so, come back and here. you. are. Trying to take my title of (perhaps) most hated commenter on here? Oh hell no. I earned that spot. You want it, you are going to have to take it from my cold, motionless fingers!

I will tell you what, we can settle this the old-fashioned way. Cage match. Two commenters enter, one commenter exits. There can only be one.

Right. I say, that should have read: “From one “troll” to another (a small badge of honor, wear it well), don’t take it all* too* personally because in spite of everything, the commenters using the* word* really do mean well.”

I am posting back to you because of your kindness to take the time to write. I am not wasting my time posting here…my life is too valuable. As stated before, I found this site by doing a ‘Rush and Carbonite’ search and liked what I saw overall. Well, last night was a real trip with the vileness of the majority of the posters who hate me just because I believe Romney is the only nominee that could beat Obama.

So, my eyes were opened to the character of the Newt supporters – their disgust should be directed towards Obama and not a fellow conservative. None of the three republicans are my top choices, but I am realistic about choosing the one who can win the election. Thanks, though, for your thoughts. Good luck with your ‘hated’ status and please stay strong for the rest of us.

Here is your opening quote:
“Waste of money…if Newt is the nominee, there is no way an overweight, 68-year-old, womanizing man is going to appeal to the 20% of Independents who will decide the 2012 election outcome.”

And you thought that rude remark was going to make people love you and treat you with respect? Newt fans? Really?

If you want to be a bitch on this site and post crap like that, you better believe people are going to fight back.

I’m actually guessing that you are mentally unstable, because your repeated appeals for “approval” are bizarre. Then again, that might be stretching it. Gotta see if you come back for more abuse, because it seems like you enjoy it.
And you think that Newt fans are lacking “character”?
Look in the mirror, woman.

@ WoodnWorld – I just got through reading all of the threads and want to say thanks for all of your posts – it means a lot. I actually woke up from a nightmare (this am) related to the vileness of my experience on this site last night – it made me feel very sad for the children of this country and the future they face in America. Keep up the fight!

Ohhh yes those Independents will vote for him. They like a guy who has the imagination (that unfortunately more than a few conservatives lack) to propose a moonbase, etc. Independents like that kind of thinking. Enough people are embarrassed by 2008 and want a chance for a mulligan.

You won…I am leaving this site…forever. Good luck with your candidate. What a waste of time even trying to be civil with posters here…good riddens. At least I have learned that Newt supporters are mean, angry and intolerant. Too bad, because having a good back-and-forth debate benefits all of us.

AnniNomiNous:
OMG, I am so thankful that are leaving the site.
And no one squelched your free speech, you whiner.

I just called you out on your lies, and you couldn’t take it.
Your words:
“At least I have learned that Newt supporters are mean, angry and intolerant. Too bad, because having a good back-and-forth debate benefits all of us.”

There has been no “back and forth” with you. You spewed lies and attacked people from the very beginning. There is no “debate” with you.
There is only whining and lie-spewing.

Nope.
I happen to be a woman who hates whiners who tell others to contribute to a candidate, but then later hear that the same whiner hasn’t contributed to ANY candidate.
I hate hypocrisy.
Notice the gravatar, beotch.

What are you, 12? You may be a woman Tamminator, but I can assure you that you are neither acting like a lady nor doing any favors for your gender or your fellow Newt supporters by behaving in this manner. I will say it again, behaving like trash lowers yourself, it lowers this comment section and it lowers everyone who has to read your garbage. Sarcasm is one thing, having an attitude and taking a tone is one thing. What you are doing, and continuing to do, is something else altogether.

“A win for Romney would show that he can, in fact, appeal to the southern electorate” — No, not really. We’re faced with the “inevitability” of Romney as the nominee but I don’t know of anyone here in my neck of the woods that he “appeals” to….

So if Romney wins with 33% while the other 2 combine for 60% or more that proves he can appeal to a southern electorate? Not really. It just shows that 2 others appeal to them more but that the voters couldn’t decide beween the two of them.

“I hope Mr Romney will remember, a southern man don’t need him around anyhow…Now Muscle Shoals has got the Swampers. They’ve been known to pick a tune or two. Lord they get me up so much. They pick me up when I’m feelin’ blue, so lets vote Newt”

Newt is as good a student of conservative/Republican politics as there is. Especially in the South. If with all his knowledge of the region and culture and the poitical climate he can’t figure out how to beat a moderate mormon from MA(with a history of being anti-gun and pro-choice among other things) in the heart of Dixie…well, even as a supporter of his I think it might be time for him to do some soul searching.

I’ve read that here and there, but it’s not true. Most notably, as governor of Massachussets he opposed a complete state takeover of health insurance of the type Kennedy favored, and he fought hard against same-sex marriage, which Kennedy supported.

Of course it isn’t true – but here you are dealing with people who not only believe Gingrich would be a viable general election candidate despite his 16+ years as the most unpopular political figure in America (even years after leaving office to peddle influence), they think he was an effective Speaker and a reliable conservative.

I reiterate. Your criticisms of Newt, that you cite as reasons Newt can’t win, come from those who fear Newt WILL win, and will break up the Establishment that is living off the American Taxpayer in the corrupt crony corridors of power.

YOU are the one who is in the rabbit hole. And it is prepared for you every day by the MSM.

It’s a lot of work to climb out of the rabbit hole. A lot of work.

Each of us must do it for himself or herself.

Your analysis is like the static scoring that the Congress does. It doesn’t take into account the living reality that life is rapidly moving and the situation is insanely fluid.

You don’t have the slightest idea what’s going to happen in the primary. You come here and insist you know. Why is that?

Because you can tell that NEwt is picking up support and you want to try to damp it down.

Reagan was not favored to win. Newt’s colleagues in the House, some of them, thought a Republican Majority was a fantasy THE NIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION in 1994.

You’re not persuasive because you don’t know, and I know you don’t know.

Are you a bigot with your “Mormon” reference? It reads that way. Oh, but Newt, who left his first two wives on their sickbeds (one has cancer and one has MS) is the moral choice? Romney’s wife has MS and he has been the shining example of a loyal and faithful husband and father, but he is “Mormon.” How ridiculous (and sad) to judge Romney based on his religion!

Did you catch the part about Newt marrying his first wife when he was 19, and she was 26, his former high school geometry teacher? She was not on her death bed. That story needs your reviewing. As for the second wife, they were separated for a number of years before divorcing. Seems she married him on the way up and was divorced on the way down. There are loads of decent people out here who have been divorced, and it isn’t always their fault that they are. Life in a loveless marriage is hell.

Reason #4 for writing poetry: It is cold and lonely here, a) without you or b) with you.

“Jackie had undergone surgery for cancer of the uterus during the 1978 campaign. After the couple separated in 1980, she had to be operated on again to remove another tumor. According to Lee Howell, Newt’s Press Secretary in 1974 and 1976, and L.H. “Kip” Carter, who was Newt’s Campaign Treasurer in 1974 and 1976, Newt brought his two daughters to visit their mother in the hospital and brought a legal pad to discuss some terms of the divorce. Jackie got angry and not long after than, Newt stopped paying child support. The couple was divorced in February of 1981. The story is recounted in teh PBS documentary “The Long March of Newt Gingrich.”

I guess the major finding is that his first wife did not have cancer, but Newt did initiate the divorce and he was involved with another woman. His second wife does have MS and he was cheating with Calista while he was still married.

If I am a troll (as this site refers to me), why would I go to all of this effort to engage a discussion with you?

KEEP GOING UP NEWT!!!! Hope the South can save us. Donated today as soon as I saw!! Wasn’t going to cause of those damn earilier polls.

Got his tentative schedule for IL, couple I can actually get to!!

Anybody see that goofy article about the Bauer dude that is Santorum supporter where he claims he did a “unscientific Survey” and 75% of conservatives Christians want Newt or Santorum to drop out and of course they preferred Santorum(of course implying Newt should leave). He’s getting as bad as Romney (pretty sure Rombo gets Rasmussen (Fox Favorite)to do his polling). The polls and candidates are getting nuts. Guess that happens when you threaten what was and is with what can be.

Santorum to Newsmax: I’d Consider Gingrich for VP
Saying he’d look for a “strong and principled conservative” as a running mate should he win the Republican presidential nomination, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum tells Newsmax that he certainly would consider rival Newt Gingrich for that vital role.

When asked if he would consider the former House Speaker as number two on his ticket, Santorum said Gingrich had been “tested” by the bruising GOP race and that makes him an attractive vice presidential candidate.

Santorum tells Newsmax that his choice would be a core conservative who is “willing to stand up and fight for the things that I believe in.”

“My principal and only criterion for vice president is to make sure that I have someone that I have confidence that if something should happen to me that they could carry on and do what I promised the people of America I would try to do,” he said.

Gingrich would seem to fit the bill more than any of the other candidates. He and Santorum have been battling for the same voters on the right of the party as they try to defeat front-runner Mitt Romney.

This is a first for me. I read this post, twice, and did not find a single sentence, a single point of analysis that I disagreed with. I am either very tired or coming down with something and will work harder on burnishing my contrarian credentials when I have either rested or beaten this new, “agreeable” bug of mine.

So Newt is the nominee and many republicans and most independents find him greasy and repulsive; consequently, Obama will have four more years to appoint lifetime liberal Supreme Court justices, fully establish his government ObamaCare scheme, destroy our once-capable military, block all drilling and mining efforts in this country and risk national security, and on and on.

Who cares about YOUR opinion, even though you insist on attacking people who are supporting the candidate that THEY believe in.
Nobody stopped you from voicing your opinion.
You just don’t like being called out on it.

I suggest that you go to a Ron Paul supporting site and spew the same kind of vitriol there and see how you are embraced.

Terri & Dino – saw both, thanks – Oy is right on yours Terri, let’s hope that doesn’t happen. I don’t remember where, but I remembered hearing that Santorum was truly in 3rd not 2nd about a week ago. I know I said after Super Tues. Newt was in 2nd place & not Santorum, and nobody argued the point so I figured then I was right, but not 100% sure because of all the fuzzy math floating around on the delegates. Weird how it takes that long for that kind of news to really get heard. Of course, I don’t watch MSM and Fox won’t give out anything but pro-Romney news so never really sure what’s on other news than what I pick out on web.

How do conservatives support a man who left his first two wives on their sick beds? Plus, we live in a very “visual” culture and like it or not, Newt’s mug and his chins are a turn-off, in addition to his sizable girth…this is not a personal attack, but a reality. My personal attack concerns Newt’s betrayal of his marriage vows, along with other character flaws. Plus, do any of you remember his global warming ad with Nancy Pelosi? Romney is the only hope of getting Obama out of office…it is the first step towards reclaiming this country. How is Newt any different from Clinton? They both can talk well and they both have womanized.

“And with a single blow from the jagged edge of twisted logic, the mighty Anni cleaved South Carolina from the continent and cast it into the sea, for in her world there would be no conservatives who support Newt Gingrich….”

First you say Newt can’t win and that he’s unelectable. Then you compare him to Clinton who was the last guy to beat an incumbent President. Which is it?

Frankly(to quote Newt), if Newt ends up like Clinton and beats Obama and then gets re-elected and presides over a booming economy only to have his 2nd term fall apart due to a personal scandal I’d be ok with that. I think most other conservatives would be as well.

My point is that you all are supporting a man who has similar traits (character & speaking abilities) to Clinton…your logic fails with Newt getting elected because the mainstream media supported Clinton and helped his election/reelection. The media hates Newt. The media loves Obama.

You needn’t worry too much Anni. If LI readers constituted the Republican electorate, Gingrich would have won the nomination back in November. But they are not. Not by a long shot, as we have seen. Gingrich as failed to win or even come in second anywhere outside of the south, except Nevada. A “southern strategy” still requires doing well outside of the south…at some point. He has failed to do so and there’s no indication that will change.

Indeed, he came in third even in Tennessee and Oklahoma!

My gut feeling is that Romney will take both Alabama and Mississippi, albeit narrowly, thus destroying permanently any plausible reason for Gingrich to continue and raising serious doubts about Santorum continuing as well. But, of course I am biased and might be very wrong.

However, I am certain of the following: Either Romney will win the nomination or we will have a brokered convention. The latter scenario will be a complete and utter disaster and guarantee Obama’s re-election regardless of what battered and bruised nominee emerges from the internecine bloodbath. But, whoever does emerge, it will NOT be Newt Gingrich. Ever. It may not be Romney or Santorum either. But the party establishment will be much more able to control whatever happens at the convention than what happens in these primaries. And they will do whatever it takes to ensure Gingrich is knocked out.

Bottom line: Newt Gingrich is not going to win the nomination under any circumstances, folks. If you want to continue supporting him for moral reasons, go right ahead. But, please do so fully aware of this simple fact.

You’re welcome. If you’re new to this site, don’t let the “Newt is AWESOME” echo-chamber fool you. There really is a great deal of intelligent discussion on here. And aside from the bristling atmosphere whenever anyone dares question Newt’s awesomeness, people on here are usually very cordial and civil

Burk-
Thanks for doing what you did with Anni last night. The more I read some of the gutter trash some of the regulars posted to her last night, the more I am ticked that I was not here to do the same as you did with a few, gracious posts. I hope you know if I had been here, I would have been dropping the “people’s elbow” on some of the lowest blows here.

I am no troll – but I seriously fear for this country if Newt is the nominee because he cannot win against Obama. Call me a troll, but if Newt is the nominee (and he will lose), then you may remember my dire predictions next November after Obama wins a second term. If someone disagrees with the majority, that makes them a troll?

If Newt wins the presidency, then I will call myself ignorant. However, I look at polls and study the Independents’ voting trends and I look at Newt’s age and his physical appearance and his womanizing while married and I am realistic.

Anni – Newt is an Alpha male, Romney is not. Just look at their body language and attitude. Newt married one of his teachers coming out of high-school – as a male I give him huge props for that. Also, Newt isn’t afraid to take the fight to the Demo’s Alpha either (Obama – who is a weaker one than Newt). Obama is scrawny and hates to be laughed at. Newt is a beast and does not mind humiliating Obama.

Romney has now won a single “southern state” if one can still count Virginia a “southern state.”

It appears that Virginia has rendered itself irrelevant in the GOP primary process this year. Forty nine delegates were awarded in the primary. Frankly, based on turnout in my precinct, it looked like fewer than 49 people voted in the primary which is terrible considering there are 8 million residents.

You have a really great conservative governor in Virginia…who did he endorse? He endorsed Romney because he knows Romney is the one who can beat Obama. In fact, I am hoping your governor will be the V.P. choice.

McDonnell’s early endorsement of Romney is a major disappointment. He rode into victory on a TEA Party surge and then immediately began to “moderate” his views in an obvious effort to curry favor with the GOP elite at the expense of those who put him in office.

Hi, WarEagle82. You said, “In so many ways, this is a more depressing primary season than 2008.” I’m so grateful I don’t feel that way. I know, it’s awful. In 2008 I was in a state of grief that was almost despair. Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right. OMG.

Then when McCain chose Palin, I thought maybe by some miracle we could get government reminiscent of Reagan, if a VP Palin could have any influence. It was a glimmer of hope. And Palin was so great. Then crash and burn. More OMG.

This is different. First of all, Newt is a candidate for PRESIDENT, not just VP, so if he wins, we will have the full power of the presidency.

And second, Newt is a Reaganite. We’ll turn the economy around fast.

Plus, third, Newt’s going to run a team campaign this fall, so the House and Senate will be committed to the conservative task of RESTORING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT

No one knows what’s going to happen. This campaign is like nothing we’ve seen for probably close to 100 years. Newt said in his interview the other day with Greta van Susteren (that interview is on electad, BTW) that he thinks we have to go back to 1920 to see anything like this.

IMO, during the next couple of months we are in the process of choosing a dramatically better future. We are going to TRANSFORM this country with American Energy.

We are going to have ENERGY ABUNDANCE.

We can pay off the national debt in one generation using $16 to $18 TRILLION in oil royalties combined with spending discipline.

We’ll have JOBS. OPPORTUNITY.

LOCAL CONTROL OF EDUCATION.

A federal government that functions inside its legitimate Constitutional limits. Return power back home under the 10th Amendment. Shrink the federal government.

Keep the federal government strong for its appointed tasks of national defense and secure borders with unlimited access for legal traffic and no access for illegal traffic; et cetera.

Break up the monied Establishment cartel between Washington and New York.

Reform taxes, regulations. Bring manufacturing back to America — really! — make the USA the greatest manufacturing country again in the world.

We can do these things. OUR FUTURE CAN BE AMAZING.

I believe that we are in the process of choosing this. I pray that we do.

To understand, it is necessary to find out. To find out, it is necessary to listen.

My ideal choice would have been Paul Ryan (I am betting Milwaukee would agree), but my main goal is to get Obama out of office; therefore, I have to support the republican who can win the White House. With the three choices, Romney is the one. I rather take ‘baby steps’ to save this country instead of an all or nothing approach (Obama vs. Newt).

Dream on…this site appears to be a “preach to the choir” site and if a poster disagrees, he/she is labeled a “troll.” Goodbye everyone and have fun all agreeing with each other and existing in a unrealistic state of Internet posting. Your womanizing candidate will not win against Obama, but you all can keep each other company in the mean time. I pray for our country that it may stand strong and continue in its greatness for my children’s future.

Anni, I hope you’re just leaving for tonight. See my post above. This is a great blog. Don’t let the pro-Gingrich choir preaching mislead you. If/when he drops out, I expect a few days of agonizing jeremiads before this blog returns to being full of lively conservative discussion.

BurkeanBadger – I may reconsider returning to this site, but you are the lone soul who wishes to engage in any sort of reasonable discussion and the rest call me a troll simply because I disagree with them. Actually, I feel more as if I am on a lefty-liberal site based on the name-calling that I have received tonight and I have to admit that I think Newt supporters are a bit unhinged. I can handle name-calling, but I cannot handle wasting my time at a keyboard with Newt drones. Most of all, we need to save our country from an irreversible course of destructive liberalism and political correctness and Newt will LOSE to Obama if he should be the nominee. Your post makes so much sense and gives me hope!

You are being called a troll Anonymous because you are repeating many false factoids that have been debunked over and over again. You have come to the discussion late, and instead of listening and learning a little, you are propagandizing.

Anni,
Don’t let some of these blowhards scare you off. Frankly, you were absolutely right; this place can sound like an echo chamber at times. Propaganda often replaces a cogent message and some of the worst of the bunch measure their individual wisdom, wit and intellect by how many collective hoots they can get from the other worsts around them.

If you do not support Newt, for whatever reason, you will be called a troll, people will allude to your being a plant, being paid by the word, being against Mom, apple pie and the American way for not believing, as they do, that Newt is the second coming of Republican Jesus. They will gang up on you, pat each other on the back for their ill manners and excuse it all by saying they are only responding to the “ill manners” Romney supporters (and others) exhibited defending themselves from them, the bullying attackers. (The nerve!)

You are not the first person they have done this to. You will not be the last. That they have so few tools, and resort so often to so many of the exact same “cards” only speaks to how dry some of their creative wells actually are.

What happened last night was absolutely uncalled for but don’t let it get to you. Take heart. I think you held your ground as best you could and admire that you held in for as long as you did. Believe me, you are not alone on here. Had I been here last night, you have my word, it would not have been as one-sided as it was.

Take the time, when you have the time (IF you have the time) and keep hammering your position out. Don’t take anyone’s crap, don’t let any comment, or commenter, get under your skin and stand up for what you believe is true.

Most importantly, please consider what I said above. Almost every person here, in spite of what you saw last night, is very passionate about this country. Because this is, among other things, a very pro-Newt crowd, many of those same people here are EXTREMELY frustrated with how the primary season is going. If you put yourselves in their shoes, invested as much energy as they have in this, and had to suffer as much as they have in the last few weeks, you would be frustrated as well. Because of that frustration, they lash out (from behind the safety and anonymity of their keyboards) at the closest manifestation of their frustration. Last night, that was you.

If you don’t let them get under your skin, continue to conduct your own research and respond point-by-point, detail-by-detail, you will feel pretty good about yourself and eventually earn the respect of some of your fiercest critics here.

Finally, Professor Jacobson has a very good thing going here. On matters not related to the primary I have, and I am sure you will as well, found myself greatly appreciating his wit, his charm, his powers of logic and persuasion and the keen attention to detail he applies to everything he addresses here. Some day, perhaps later than sooner, this primary will be over. When it is the meanest and lowest mudslingers will have to find someone and some thing other than you and your values to be angry about. The rest, the noblest, the wisest and most intelligent will return to commenting on matters nearly every, single, one of us would agree on were we not afforded this (wonderful isn’t it?!) opportunity to tear ourselves to shreds.

@ Raven – polling shows that Romney has the best chance of beating Obama. This does not mean that Obama won’t win…I do not have a crystal ball. The mainstream media is also the Obama 2012 reelection committee, so there is no certainty that any republican can beat Obama, but Romney has the best chance with Independents…like it or not…that is the reality of the situation.

“Most of all, we need to save our country from an irreversible course of destructive liberalism and political correctness and Newt will LOSE to Obama if he should be the nominee.”

Your analysis and predictions betray a misunderstanding of Leftism, electoral appeal and electoral history.

Many references to Gingrich’s wives and personal life but you offer no support for the argument that this adversely influences his general electability. You compare him with Clinton within the context of electability and appeal, yet overlook that Clinton won two terms.

You cite “destructive liberalism and political correctness” and the need to fight them. Not only has Romney NEVER fought these, he’s contributed to both. Romneycare advanced liberalism even Socialism more decisively than any piece of policy in modern America. Romney actually legitimized the idea of Socialized healthcare; it was the pilot program for Obamacare. Gingrich “sat down with Pelosi” but he did not rise with a disastrous policy in his hands. He also apologized. Romney’s abomination is memorialized in legislation which he won’t apologize for or refute. Romneycare will be used as a base-demoralizing cudgel by Obama and the Left throughout any contest with Romney.

As a RINO, Romney is generically and reflexively politically correct and has never challenged it in any risky way or attempted to shape and control any anti-PC conservative narrative. Romney even challenged and undermined Gingrich’s critique of the media as corrupt PC masters of the narrative. Newt on the other hand has both formed and driven epochal conservative narratives. He has challenged political correctness more vigorously and spontaneously and more as a disciplined practice than any other candidate.

“So Newt is the nominee and many republicans and most independents find him greasy and repulsive.”

Subjective and unsubstantiated.

“Romney is the only hope of getting Obama out of office…

Subjective and unsubstantiated. Indeed, contra-wise, this is exactly what Massachusetts republicans said about Romney prior to his run against Ted Kennedy, a Leftist running at his most vulnerable moment. Romney imploded in the final month of the race, losing by 20 points. It was not merely the fact he lost but the way he lost – haplessly and defensively. He drove no narratives of his own and challenged none of the Left’s. He was both reactive and ineptly passive-aggressive.

“The media hates Newt. The media loves Obama.”

The media hates all Republicans; for all practical purpose it will not hate one more or less than any other. The difference is, the media has some fear of Gingrich. Newt knows how to gaff the media. Romney knows only how to gaffe. Romney hasn’t even the media savviness of McCain.

You argue, correctly, that Obama will continue his depredatory anti-American behavior, implying I expect that Republicans need to nominate a warrior provenly willing and able to take him on. What in Romney’s past or career has ever given you reason to believe he is a warrior or would or could take on the Left? Looking at polls in a primary to determine who has more appeal in a general election is a problematic conceit that rarely bears out.

“I seriously fear for this country if Newt is the nominee because he cannot win against Obama.”

Once again, subjective. How does Romney propose to win against Obama? When and how has Romney ever shown electoral strength against the Left? When and how has he ever shown the will or talent to take on the Left?

Romney is evidently unsustainable without at least a 5-1 money advantage to bury opponents in negative advertising. How can he compete against a candidate with a 3:1 money advantage and who is aggressively supported by a media intent on destroying him? Moreover he has only tepid appeal among the base. No Republican candidate has ever won a general election without exciting and galvanizing the base. The myth of the moderate-to-liberal Republican who charms the media and wins over independents is just that – a myth. Reagan won more democrats and independents than any Republican in history while also electrifying his own base. A counter-intuitive truth RINOs simply cannot absorb. Voters gravitate to authenticity and conviction. Romney has neither.

“my main goal is to get Obama out of office; therefore, I have to support the republican who can win the White House.”

Again, no substantiation that Romney can “win the White House.” Romney can barely hold his own against relatively non-combative Republicans and while operating without much hostile media scrutiny. What warrior skills and guts will Romney miraculously develop to surmount a huge money disadvantage against a ruthless Leftist?

As Breitbart has proved, the only way to challenge the Leftist narratives is to come at them with proactive, fearless narratives of your own. Romney has never done this in his life. Newt has — repeatedly.

To: Banned by the Guardian who wrote to me, “Ann – how many sexual partners have you had & do you have herpes?”
You Newt supporters are a real trip…name-callers, intolerant, self-righteous, etc. I thank you for revealing your true selves tonight – you absolutely reinforced my opinion of Newt tonight. I hope you are all proud of yourselves. Take the word ‘Newt’ out of your posts and replace it with ‘Obama’ and there is no difference in your posts vs. the liberal lefty posts.

No, you must be proud of yourself.
You are so utterly clueless and rude and you think everyone is going to love you for telling them that they are wrong.
Apparently you know more than anyone, Jesus, and we just haven’t seen your “light”.

Honestly, do you think the Professor, who supports Newt, thinks that you are some gem that he doesn’t want to lose as a poster?
Seriously?

Hey AnniNomiNous — you said, AnniNomiNous | March 9, 2012 at 10:17 pm
“I hope you are donating to Scott Walker then if you stick to your principles. And I hope for your state’s sake, that Walker prevails – he is a good man.”

I agree with you about Scott Walker, AnniNomiNous.

And you said, — AnniNomiNous | March 9, 2012 at 11:39 pm
“To: Banned by the Guardian who wrote to me, “Ann – how many sexual partners have you had & do you have herpes?” You Newt supporters are a real trip…name-callers, intolerant, self-righteous, etc. I thank you for revealing your true selves tonight – you absolutely reinforced my opinion of Newt tonight. I hope you are all proud of yourselves. Take the word ‘Newt’ out of your posts and replace it with ‘Obama’ and there is no difference in your posts vs. the liberal lefty posts.”

I would like, AnniNomiNous, to say that I have not seen much, if anything, like that tone here at this site. I was shocked to read that. That does sound like something from a Lefty site.

To the very best of my belief, BannedBytheGuardian is not a supporter of NEwt. You are new here, I guess, and you have no way of knowing that. I’m not sure, because I”m fairly new here, myself. He purports to be British, I think, and to be living on the California coast … ? Or in Hawaii? He often posts derisive, superior remarks. Maybe others will kindly enlighten us on BannedbytheGuardian. I’ve often thought that I could see why he was banned.

AnniNomiNous, I definitely do not think that kind of comment furthers the discussion.

Most people here want the same things as you probably want: a strong country, with freedom, a good economy, a safe place to raise children, hope for a better tomorrow. Most people probably always want those things.

You say you have concluded, based on polls, that Romney can defeat Obama in the fall. I believe that NEwt will defeat Obama in the fall. You’re totally entitled to your opinion. But, me, too.

How about if we support our chosen nominee and hope that our country will be ok, and our families and children and parents and economy will all be ok. And treat each other with respect.

For people here, who support and even love Newt, most of us have looked, LONG, LONG, AGO into the slander about his second marriage and the hospital-divorce-argument-scene. So maybe whipping that out and shoving it into people’s faces wasn’t the most diplomatic thing you’re ever done.

I started researching NEwt more than a year ago to find out if I could support him. And that story about the dying-wife-divorce-hospital was a HUGE BIG DEAL to me.

I discovered, as I guess you did tonight, that his daughter has written that it wasn’t like that. The second wife looks like she has it in for him. I have read that they were separated for something like 8 years before the divorce. And that, yes, she emptied out his house one day, and has threatened to end his career before. Niiiice. Divorce is swell.

But as I continued to research NEwt, what happened for me was that I started watching Newt’s old speeches. And within a few weeks, I didn’t care about the divorce-hospital thing any more.

It was because of Newt’s ideas for transforming government so that the government is the SERVANT OF THE PEOPLE instead of trying the be the master. And now I support NEwt 100%.

And in closing, may I say that I, too, struggle with trying to be diplomatic. Because to me, not supporting Newt seems suicidally shortsighted. Sorry. There it is.

But it’s not a respectful way to express myself, and it’s not loving, and so I don’t want to express myself that way. As Americans, and as human souls on the planet at the same time, we’re in this together.

So, AnniNomiNous, if I misjudged you, I’m sorry.

We’re all in this together. Right? Believe me, I want safety, happiness and opportunity for all our children, yours and mine included, and, frankly, for all people, to tell the truth.

You’re entitled to your opinion. I totally agree with that.

But it might help you to know that there really ARE Romney supporters, “Romneybots,” who come here, apparently solely to try to demoralize Newt supporters.

So, I can understand why people reacted the way they did. There’s history here. Not everyone seems to be exactly what they claim to be. Not everyone, I think, is sincere.

Hope this helps. Again, I suspect I misjudged you. I’m sorry.

As fellow Americans, we’re in this together. I want to restore our government, just as you do. I’d be happy to discuss with you our ideas on how to to do that. Peace.

@ Hope Change – thanks for the thoughtful post…to be honest, I am done with this site. I am so saddened by the vileness of the responses to my posts from my “conservative” counterparts. Honestly, I have lost some measure of hope for this country after the attacks I have received on this site tonight.

Yes, I am new to this site – I ended up here because I was web-searching info on Rush and Carbonite (I canceled my Carbonite account). I am as conservative as they come, but realistically, besides Newt being a turn-off to me due to his cheating and womanizing, sad to say, he does not possess the physical characteristics to win an election in this ‘visual’ society. Also, I cannot erase the image of Newt and Pelosi, agreeing on global warming, from my mind.

I am in the “Anybody But Obama” camp right now – yes, I am desperate. If Newt is the nominee, I will vote for him, but no matter what the posters say on this site, he is not an electable man.

I am so disappointed in the current republican bunch, I have not donated a penny to any of them…therefore, I am not a “troll” or a “plant” as was repeated over and over to me tonight. I want my kids and my grandchildren to live the American dream as I have been blessed with, and my hopes of this are growing dim.

After my experience on this web site tonight, my hopes are even more dim. Look at my posts…I did not resort to personal attacks, but I was trying to engage a debate for the good of the republican party and for the good of the country. Some of the vile insults hurled at me and my gender (female) on this site surprised me, seeing as I am very conservative.

I am not hurt by the insults, but I am very concerned (and surprised) that the Newt supporters come across as radical…you know, they sound like the typical ‘Huffington Post’ liberal commentors…that is scary to me in regards to the future of the republican/conservative movement.

“I am no troll – but I seriously fear for this country if Newt is the nominee because he cannot win against Obama.”

“I just wish to point out that Newt cannot beat Obama in the presidential election.”

A troll is not someone who constantly disagrees but one who constantly repeats a favored meme without any substantive argument to back it up.

The sum total of your argument is that Newt’s too old, doesn’t look right, and has a messy personal history with women.

The case for Romney, as I’ve seen it here, seems to be: 1. He’s inevitable, get used to it. 2. He has some mystical, irresistible and as yet undemonstrated appeal to independents that obviates his gross failure to inspire conservatives and which guarantees electability. 3. Newt is bad.

People here who support Newt have gotten a lot of derisive, very negative comments, from people who seem to be attempting to sound superior. We’ve gotten many condescending criticisms and they are mostly from Romney supporters.

When you ask why they support Romney it’s usually that Romney can beat Obama. I find that alarmingly unpersuasive. To me, Romney looks like he will be absolutely pwned by the Obama machine and the MSM. Just a replay of McCain, Dole and all the other losers (forgive me, but I’m not calling names; I mean losers) the Establishment Republicans put forward when they don’t really want to win.

I wasn’t here at the blog today or tonight while the exchanges between you and other commenters was taking place. I started reading later.

Maybe each of us can review what we said to see how it might feel to receive a comment like that?

Now, as to content, I can understand that from your point of view, you don’t think Newt is electable.

Please realize, though, that I have been studying this very seriously for a long time, now, and I have concluded that Newt is electable. I’ve also concluded that Newt’s the only one who is electable.

I’ve also concluded that once Newt is elected, we will be able to fix the terrible, terrible destruction of the Obama presidency to the structure of our government.

So… you entered a conversation that’s been going on for a while — months, at least, and there are some hot and maybe hurt feelings. People have been flamed by Romney supporters.

Yes, I see that you got flamed here. I do see that. But think for a moment how it looked to people who had never heard of you before when one of the first things you did was start leaving links to what are, to us, discredited junk, full of lies, about the candidate we support.

You’re not the first person who is trying to say we have no good reason for supporting NEwt. Right? I hope you can see what I mean.

Another point — I agree that Newt is not physically prepossessing. He once said he has the shape of a raccoon, and I think of him as a raccoon in a business suit. But I don’t mind that at all.

On the other hand, I can’t even describe to you how repulsed I am by the physical appearance of other candidates who shall remain nameless so that I don’t start anything more. So these reactions are opinions. We have opinions. Strong opinions.

ONe of my heart-felt opinions is that I genuinely think our kids are going to have a MUCH better future if Newt is elected.

So look — I’m just a commenter here. As I mentioned, I’m pretty new here. I certainly don’t speak for anyone except myself. I’m just getting to know other commenters, and the bloggers, and the Prime Blogger Extraordinaire, the Illustrious Professor.

But I’m just really, really committed to getting NEwt the nomination. Because if NEwt is the nominee, NEwt will win this fall. Certo.

I would love to share with you why I think Newt is great. I think Newt will win decisively and our economy will show measurable turnaround within 6 months, and significant, significant improvement, like a recovery, within 18 months to two years. We’ve done this before. The economy’s not even the hard part.

So, AnniNomiNous, whatever happens — if you leave, if you stay, if you comment or if you do not — in any case —

— with every sincere American who wants a strong, free America within our Constitution’s framework, recognizing the American Tradition of our Rights coming from the Creator and not from some government … et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…. with that kind of American, I am an ally.

So, based on what you wrote to me tonight, I consider that we are allies. It’s possible that people of good will could build on such an alliance.

We can have an AWESOME, REMARKABLE, OUTSTANDING, DRAMATICALLY BETTER FUTURE. This is self-government. So peace, and good night.

@ Hope Change – thanks for your post…you and I can overlook physical attributes for the good of the country, but let’s face it, the current culture is very superficial and looks matter…especially on high definition TV!

Additionally, Newt’s personal baggage (3 marriages) is just sitting there waiting for the perfect moment for the mainstream media to attack him and bring him down. Do you really think they will ignore Calista’s hairstyle? You may not want to face my observations, but Newt and the Mrs. are viewed as a feeding frenzy for the mainstream media…that is the reality of the situation. Good night.

OMG, are you STILL begging for sympathy and attention?
Hope Change is a wonderful person who was so charitable in her comment to you, and you decided to CONTINUE to slam this site and the regular posters who come here.

You haven’t given a penny to a Republican? Weren’t you just ranting about Scott Walker earlier? So you didn’t send him anything?
Hypocrite.

You came here to pick a fight, insult people, be hateful, and then you tell the people who fight back that WE are the intolerant ones?

Anni & Burke, I said it once already, not in the mood to fight with lies, distortions and opinions of some here so that they can try to lift-up their either Massachuset Moderate or Pennsylvania Big Govmt. Labor candidate. Especially when you come out with the LAMEST OF THE LIES and you have to go back and find out where your wrong, if you vetted & verified we wouldn’t here your clap-trap flapping, you’d know they were false & hopefully you would find a true flaw that you can back up (one that isn’t about his married life – but don’t think you have the class or intelligence for that kind of fight). You like to fight below the belt out of the gate. That’s fine, but don’t expect people not to want to rip your head off for it.

Since I’m not here to fight, I leave all you trolls this and will smile with every comment after.

No, a troll is someone who comes in only to destroy a certain person or issue – this happens to be Newt- with lies, distortions & laughable evidence and then tells the majority not only are they wrong but then you insult them on top of it. Not the way to woe others to your opinion or candidate in this instance. Since you seem to like the negative attention your getting (really seeing same anger issues with men in Anni – was it an abusive relationship Ann that ended hopefully in divorce or break-up – IF NOT GET OUT NOW BEFORE EVERYONE WANTS TO ABUSE YOU) do yourselves a favor and read Hope Change on this site. Don’t know if Hope’s a man or woman, but they try to steer poor lost souls like you to try to see the truth about Gingrich. Hope goes about leading people to the truth with links, gentle prodding & and plenty of verifiable evidence. Come back here with that about Rombo & Santorum, and maybe you’ll get a civil discussion. But most of us won’t waste our time, we already know your candidate, and don’t prefer them.

Tam – Thank you for saving me typing, don’t know where you get the energy – thinking most of what you say and laughing my ass off!

I wrote this huge comment tonight, to AnniNomiNous, before I saw your comment. And I tried to be fair and bring peace in my own attitude.

Your words encourage me so much.

It’s not electing NEWt, per se. It’s getting back the safe, limited government that keeps the peace and lets us explore what it means to be alive without fearing the gulag, the IRS, the EPA or whoever.

And the reason that matters is creativity and connection.

And I’m appreciating both of those tonight! Thank you. I do believe We The People are going to win this.

LIke you, I donate, too. And I signed up at newt’s network.

And Tamminator, we’ve got to have fire sometimes! You have lots of fire. Me, too, sometimes. Thank you, also for your push-back. WE do put up with a lot of “Romneybot” trollish attempts to put out the fire of our support for Newt. And you fight back. I appreciate it. I love you for it.

AndI say again, to all and sundry: IF Romney is so great, and IF Romney is so inevitable, and IF Romney is so electable, then what are the Romney supporters doing here? They should be out having a permanent celebration. They’re here because NEWT is the one who is going to win this. And they know it. They feel it. Moi aussi!

Hope -Sorry, had read the post & forgot it was you or I’d have told them look farther up the page for examples. Unfortunately for us, finding out they had already seen and spoken to you, means they’re unteachable. Sad. But on a bright note – you truly earn all of the praise given and just hope it does justice for all the time you’ve had to spend not only finding articles, videos, etc, but also all the time spent explaining why and what led you to your beliefs. A soft sell is always treated better than a hard sell and you are wonderful at it. You also save me tons of time looking up where I saw something or who said what, and again, THANKS. Looking forward to more from you and many of the others here at this site. Even on worst of days, someone’s comment always makes me LOL.

@ Hope Change…what happened to your earlier (seemingly positive) tone? It appears to me you meant well, but your allegiance remains with the Newt radicals. There is a very strange Newt symbiosis occurring on this site. You all seem to praise each other with an eerie and collective condescension to the non-Newt posters. Very strange…no tolerance for debate. I had ‘hope’ for you, Hope Change.

Tammi, I have no doubt you are capable of being even more profane and embarrassing yourself even further. None whatsoever. Since you seem entirely incapable of restraining yourself I actually encourage you to completely take the mask off and let everyone see just how filthy and poisonous you really can be. It’s just us folks here, no need for putting on airs or pretending to be civil.

Is “beotch” really the best you have? Surely you can do better than that?

The name – Newt’s radicals – came from the troll, how alinsky. Don’t argue with trolls . I have argued with anarchist/socialists. Their political blinders is a one size fits all by force in their political arguments. Best not to engage. Allow them to speak & their challenged logic will reveal to all.

At some point, math has to count. In order for Gingrich to contend – even only to the point where he and Santorum and Paul together have enough delegates to deny Romney a majority – he not only has to at least double his vote share from all the events so far (except SC and GA), but he has to do it by taking those votes almost exclusively from Romney.

Because if he takes them from Santorum, they are just dividing the minority of delegates. And that just plays into the Romney math.

Now, it’s good for a candidate’s supporters to keep that faith alive and believe it is possible, but it doesn’t make it plausible just because they want to believe it is.

The nominations have essentially been decided by primaries since the ’70s for Democrats and 1980 for Republicans (because we ran incumbents in ’72 and ’76, although they did play a role in the latter contest). In none of those campaigns in either party has a candidate who was behind in delegates and popular votes after Super Tuesday contests come from behind to win his party’s nomination.

So you are not only expecting history to be made against all current polling, you expect it to be made by the one man who has consistently managed the most negative public image of any American political figure in the last 20 years.

Newt is in second place with pledged delegates according to the RNC count. Santorum is Third. That doesn’t count the delegates that were supposed to be apportioned in FL which would put Newt even further ahead of Santorum.

Newt’s strategy is to win pledged delegates in a few states, it has nothing to do with number of states won or popular vote. In 1952 Dwight Eisenhower came into the convention with fewer popular votes and fewer states won than Robert Taft. Coming in, he supposedly also had fewer delegates, but delegates were taken from Taft under something they called “Fair Play” at the convention. Eisenhower went on to win the nod and the election.

As far as needing to be personally well liked to win, that is an old election fallacy. Nixon was never a well liked man, but he won easily in 1968 and again in 1972 by one of the largest landslides ever. There are a whole host of Presidents who were elected but were not well liked, even Lincoln, who actually had to disguise himself as a woman in order to enter Washington safely for his Inauguration. On the other hand, there have been many likable guys who have lost, just ask Humphrey and Mondale.

I don’t fear a contest, I embrace it as a part of the political system. And whoever wins, wins.

Why do you think he has such a negative public image? Where does the negative image come from?

Because the poachers and Establishment crony insiders of either party and all up and down the corridor of crony power between Washington, D.C. and New York don’t like it when their cozy exchange of government favors GETS BROKEN UP.

Dollars to donuts, you get all your information about Newt from media and second-hand. Watch Newt’s lecture to the cadets at the The Citadel, “AMERICAN FREEDOM AND THE CONSERVATIVE INTELLECTUAL TRADITION,”
his 2009 speech, “2012:VICTORY OR DEATH,”
his 2010 speech, “MICHIGAN MUST CHANGE OR DIE,”
the new “AMERICAN ENERGY, STRONG ECONOMY” talk
and his speech from Montgomery, Alabama from a couple of days ago.

I dare you to watch those five speeches. Then come and tell me why you don’t support him. I don’t think you can do it.

The ideas make sense. They fit our national character, the spirit of innovation and CAN DO that permeates our culture. The plans are rooted in American tradition and grow out of our American DNA.

Peace, brother. If you do watch these speeches, please get back to me.

Anyone who wants a link to just those five speeches, say the word and I will make one.

The biggest nightmare of all for the Left is, WHAT IF WE HAVE ABUNDANT ENERGY AND WE DON’T NEED THE GOVERNMENT?

AMERICAN ENERGY policy, pay off the national debt in the next generation with oil royalties of $16 to $18 TRILLION, have affordable gasoline and plenty of jobs across the country. Give our kids and grandkids a debt-free country.

Imagine the end result of Romney’s ($2.00 per gallon gas tax) and Obama’s (No Keystone No Drill Algae) Energy Policies…

Someone already has:

“Ladies and gentlemen, OBAMA-ROMNEY Incorporated, the same company that brought you comprehensive mandatory universal health care, now introduces the latest concept in automobiles, The 2012 Pelosi GTxi SS/RT!!!”

AnniNomiNous | March 10, 2012 at 3:01 am
So you are a troll for Newt and I am a troll for Romney…is that your point?

I don’t know if you’re a “troll” but your critiques are punishingly shallow and monotonous. Do have any substantive reason for opposing Gingrich or supporting Romney? You cite electability but with little understanding or even acknowledgment of its historical paradoxes (Reagan’s triumphs and the RINO failures) and refuse to engage its meaning, i.e., what and who are we even electing? You won’t or cannot address Romneycare, or Romney’s demonstrated inability to excite or consolidate Republicans, or Romney’s scant and lackluster electoral performances, or his notorious personal awkwardness and out-of-touchness, his demoralizing uncomprehension of the Left and fear of confronting the media, his risk-averse style at a time when only the risk-takers are doing damage to the Left, his dependence on a managerial model as a basis for voter appeal in an era of perilous assaults on our freedoms, his lack of intellectual contributions to the conservative project. You must realize that “Gingrich as repulsive” is a shallow, subjective and unpersuasive argument either against Gingrich or for Romney and simply invites ridicule.

Spoken by the “Legal Insurrection Pillar of Objectivity,” the veritable standard bearer for measured, unbiased analysis and tempered responses…

You must realize that choosing now to feign a reasoned debate posture with AnniNomiNous, waiting until today to pseudo-scientifically conflate anyone’s inability to persuade the unpersuaded (and admittedly unpersuadable!) with a lack of persuasive skills, all while touting your (questionable) success at having (completely objectively, of course) “persuaded” the already converted, also opens yourself up to ridicule, right?

Huh? When did I ever boast of being objective? I’m completely biased. But I keep asking — when has Mitt Romney ever proved his combative wits and electoral appeal against the Left. And I never get an answer.

What seems to pass for logic in your world is you trying to catch other people on their subjectivity, hammer them for their opinions, all while admitting you are totally biased, completely angry, entirely negative and wholly incapable of seeing the fallibility of your own opinions.

The reason you don’t get answers is three-fold: First, your “ask,” your question and the premise behind it is entirely loaded. You construct illusory tests for Romney that mean nothing, predict nothing and say nothing. This one could be easily rebutted by anyone with any objective understanding of Romney’s entire record in Massachusetts (not just the cherry-picked talking points you parrot back from the MSM).

Second, as you have already admitted, you are entirely biased, know damn well you have already lost, know damn well you have been so wrong oh so often in the last couple months and are now in, and I quote, “burn it all” to the ground mode. You can’t win and are now content to convince everyone else that they too can’t win.

Third, you are entirely convinced you are right and equally convinced that everyone else is wrong. You exhibit all of the signs and symptoms of a classic, stereotypical, internet poster and do so while passing your little gems off as “intelligent and logical.”

You aren’t interested in another point of view and you aren’t interested in “The Debate” or “The Free Exchange of Ideas.” Frankly, you are an intellectual hack: a passable writer but, in matters of political analysis, a very poor thinker.

“Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum scored wins against each other, but it was former Speaker Newt Gingrich who single-handedly drove President Obama into panic mode.

“…the undeniable fact remains that he [Romney] has not demonstrated the ability to win a race without vastly outspending his opponents, often by 5-to-1 and even 12-to-1. He will not enjoy this luxury against the sitting president and the billion-dollar Obama machine. Veteran political writer John Fund says Republicans are “fooling themselves” if they ignore this sobering reality…”

What world do you live on where a candidate must match, or underspend, his/her opponents to “demonstrate” there a ability to win an election/primary/caucus (whatever)?

Worse, what universe do you inhabit where the Romney liability of (perhaps ) being outspent by the “billion-dollar Obama machine” this Summer/Fall will be mitigated by another candidate who has proven themselves entirely incapable of fundraising? Romney will not “enjoy this luxury” then so we must put our faith and resources in someone who was never capable of attaining that “luxury” now?

Oh, I will try although I must confess how terribly difficult it is to follow the moves of one who oh so selectively cherry picks her sources to make her case and oh so subjectively deems her opinions beyond repute and the opinions of others beneath consideration. I will do my best though.

On the contrary, it is both your faculties and your prowess that are consistently the issue here. The points Dr. Wolf, not the Washington Times writ large (try to pay attention, there is a difference) make here are points you have made, word for word, many times before. In challenging the logic and objectivity of the source you subjectively selected I am, in effect, challenging you. Once again: weighed, measured, found wanting. Next…

Romney has been running and raising money for six years (Gingrich and Santorum nowhere close); it makes sense he’d have more structural money-raising advantages, and more money. He is also personally wealthy and borrows from his personal fortune to finance his perpetual campaign for the presidency.

As of 1/31/2012, according to Center for Responsive Politics and NY Times, Romney had raised approximately $64 million. He’d spent most of it, with $7.6 million on hand. The bulk of his funds come from large donors (hedge funds and corporate bundlers, not small individual donors). Around a fifth of this money comes from his own personal fortune. For this investment, as of 1/31, he’d accumulated around 1 million votes. It comes out to around $51/vote. Santorum spent 5.2 million to this point for around 380,000 votes, a per vote investment of approx. $14. Gingrich paid $16.5 million for around 818,00 votes — $20 per vote.

Bang-for-buck, Santorum and Gingrich whip Romney. That Romney has outspent a divided not-Romney opposition by this amount and is still struggling is a rather clear statement as to his political “Q Factor”.

Obama, meanwhile, has about $75 million on hand.

Romney’s burn rate – money-for-votes ratio – is unsustainable.

While the Republican candidate in any case will be outmatched, who does logic tell us would be the more efficient and effective candidate, one who pays $51 per vote, or one who pays $14 or even $20?

It’s 2:20am here in Iraq. I will come back to this later today, probably late morning, with a response to both posts.

Between now and then, I will say this (and it is probably as true, if not more so, for me as well), you are much easier to respond to when you leave the sarcasm and the condescension at the door. I know I can be an ass. It is a character flaw. I, sometimes too stridently, try to be snarky and imagine the attitude I actually project makes it hard for you or anyone else to take a measured tone while responding to me. I say this only because you are far more likely to get a “real” response, a real “case” from me if you comment in the way you just have in these last two posts, rather than how we have handled one another up to this point. If you want to have a debate, I am willing to accept. I am under no delusions that either of us will be converted but, differences aside, I think if either one of us dropped our swords, we might realize neither of us is *that* far from the other.

I own my share of this, admit my failings and, in spite of them, am willing to share my perspectives with someone who I think might at least listen to what I have to say. I have a reason (reasons?) for believing the way I do, am absolutely capable of articulating those reasons, but have no desire to see my own opinions sarcastically shat upon simply because those perspectives are not in the majority here or because a single dissenter wants to get personal and try to tear both me, and my opinions, apart.

Please remember that, all differences aside, as a commenter here I do admire both your passion and your consistency. Until then, enjoy the rest of your day.

Tammi, you don’t need Anni or I to prove you right. All you need is yourself. Your self righteous assurance that everything you say is gold and anything anyone else says is crap, your tinny little echo chamber here, your thin-skinned “defense(s), your lack of class/bearing/self discipline, is more than enough to appease you here.

Talk about sympathy troll, I am starting to feel very sorry for you. While part of me wants to believe you were not raised very well, are really not that educated, and/or are just hiding behind the Professor’s/raven’s coattails, deep down I know that this has nothing to do with where you came from, but rather who you are as a person.

It is comforting to see you and raven high-fiving one another here (yay, headbutt!). I have long associated raven as one of the most toxic, sociopathic, anhedonic and angry little birds here and am happy for the opportunity to so closely associate your personalities with one another in both space and time.

The only tools either of you have are destructive. While Hope may be woefully ignorant about the reality of this race, at least she tries to maintain an upbeat attitude about things and answer “attacks” with a positive message. Neither you nor raven are capable of either.

Anni, thank you. Yes, I am in Iraq now so many of my posts will be off cycle with a lot of what you all are doing back home.

I have mentioned it, sporadically, elsewhere but I am a veteran, prior service Reconnaissance Marine, and have spent a number of years trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat here in the region. When I left active service I worked my ass off to get into a very good school, I did very well there and have been back over here ever since.

Put another way, both my military service and my education have imminently prepared me to deal with the, with devastating results if I do say so myself, tyrants/bullies/blowhards and angry, pompous, self-righteous, holier than thou, pseudo-academic, self-proclaimed geniuses of the world.

WoodnWorld – quite an impressive resume and many thanks for your service. Take good care of yourself. I wish Tamminator, Raven, etc., etc., would realize that a guy like you is what makes this country exceptional and that you are looking out for them and their families. It’s the radical left they should be disliking and criticizing, not those who support and sustain freedom.

I speak from experience when I say that both raven and Tamminator are more against Mitt Romney than they are for their candidates, and, Raven at least, is more against Mitt Romney than she is against Barack Obama. I don’t need to tell you there is something wrong with that dynamic.

My first priority is beating Barack. Everything else is secondary to that. Their first priority is stopping Mitt Romney. Priorities.

Thank you for the kind words and thank you for coming back, if even for just a little bit. (Personally, I would like to see you stick around if for no other reason than to send Tamminator further into apoplexy…)

Most importantly, thank you again for standing up for yourself, your opinions and what you believe in. I know it’s not easy to hold your position when you are “taking fire.” Again, well done!

Romney’s “burn rate” is only a valid point if the amount of money he is capable of raising in the future is either limited or finite. It’s not. There is always more money out there. There is always more that could be raised. As someone who has worked on a number of campaigns, I will tell you right now these are both facts. I personally have not contributed a dime to any of the candidates in this race. I am not alone. When Romney wins the nomination he WILL see a jump in fundraising.

The “burn rate” can also be (easily) be debunked by the fact that this primary, from the beginning, was designed to be more protracted that 2008 or any other primary before it. So many of you ask why Mitt hasn’t “put this thing away” yet, why it is taking so long for him to seal things up. We both know that this primary, with it’s backloading many of the contests later in the season, diminishing the total number of races on Super Tuesday and making more of the races proportional allocations rather than winner-take-all, this race was ALWAYS designed/destined to last longer than others. Races that last longer cost more. It’s that simple.

Your “bang-for-buck” and “money-for-votes” argument is specious and only serves to make you and yours feel a little better about the state of the race thus far and the extremely uncomfortable fact that your candidate(s) is (are) losing where it really counts. In the real world, the only measure that matters in this race is whether your candidate wins delegates and wins states, or not. Sure, Newt and Rick may have saved a lot of money by switching to Geico, but doing so has not delivered results. This contest was never about who can earn the most amount of candidates with the least amount of cash. Historically, winners have almost always tended to spend more than those who lost. It’s nearly a maxim in politics, “he who has the most, wins.”

Let us not forget the uncomfortable facts that first, if Rick and Newt had the money, they would spend it. Second, they can’t raise that kind of money, this absolutely reflects poorly on both of their campaigns and neither has proven they have the ability to change this reality even if they wanted to.

What exactly are you challenging? That Mitt Romney is the most inefficient political spendthrift of our time? That he can only win primaries contests by vastly outspending his opponents on unrelievedly negative ads? The contentions in the Washington Times piece?

Your point seems to be that Romney is a better candidate because he’s demonstrated greater ability to raise more money, and this puts him in better stead than the others against Obama, who will raise and have more than anybody. But this a shriveled piece of the fuller argument. The larger argument should include questions about how a candidate spends money, how the candidate will do when outspent (Gingrich and Santorum obviously do better than Romney; Gingrich was outspent in South Carolina and drubbed Romney, Santorum has been consistently outspent and more than held his own) and the message and personal inspiration and skills in battling media narratives that each candidate offers to overcome such money disadvantages. Has Romney ever won when being so seriously outspent? Has Romney EVER been outspent? Has Romney ever challenged a media narrative?

Given all this, you wish to maintain, to extrapolate from Romney’s extravagant inefficiency and demonstrably poor ability to inspire or consolidate the Republican electorate over two election periods, that he is better suited to face Obama?

I am challenging the “fact” that “efficiency” is any measure at all. I am challenging the fact that because Romney has raised a lot, and spent a lot, he will somehow be weakened in the future for it. That he will not be able to continue to do so, to an even greater extent, when he wins the primary.

Your point seems to be that Romney is a better candidate because he’s demonstrated greater ability to raise more money, and this puts him in better stead than the others against Obama, who will raise and have more than anybody.

My perhaps “shriveled” (lol) point is that Obama’s numbers, his projections, are likely (and at least five different sources I can think of right now say this), extremely inflated. Not only that but they are inflated by the same water carriers in the MSM that you and yours claim to despise until they give you a projectile, like this one, that you can use to throw at Mitt Romney. Even if the numbers are not inflated, just because a candidate is outspent does not mean they are certain to lose. You yourself cite, correctly, that Gingrich won SC in spite of being outspent. I will be the first to concede money helps, and more of it helps more, but it is not the only factor that matters in a race.

My point is that there is only one candidate who has proven they can even come close to Barack Obama in fundraising. If having a little less than his campaign is a liability, surely having far less makes for a far greater liability. Ergo, by your own logic both Newt and Rick are toast in a head-to-head with Obama.

If you want to talk pure numbers, the pure “economics” of the race, yes, Romney is absolutely “better suited to face Obama” and I personally challenge you, using your own metrics, to find someone who is better suited than him.